[Discussion]Chancellor

[Hotfoot]

I have to admit I'm not exactly happy with the prospect of replacing Rob. Mainly because he was something of a unique individual he was both logical and a good debator, but also quite cheerful and charasmatic and could really bring more than just smarts to a debate. And those qualities really tend to shine when he was Chancellor. I do agree we're suffering from his lack of presence, but not just because he was Chancellor, but because it was Rob as Chancellor. I do believe putting another chancellor in his place would not really "fix" things per se, but it would more likely change the nature of the Senate - and its already been changing (Its alot less lighthearted than it was. Where's the corruption??)

I am fine with the idea of adding a Deputy chancellor though, and Stas would be a good choice there. I am also against the idea of making it a moderating position. If there's somehow a lag or delay in executing decision, then we can be adding more mods/supermods (I knwo at least we were INTENDING to add mods..)

Look, I love Robbo, I do, but if he's not here, he can't influence anything. Think of if Mike left the board tomorrow. Everyone kept running it, but Mike was never around. After a while, it wouldn't be his board anymore. Without his presence, things start to change.

So with all due respect, the change to the Senate is already here. We need to correct for this by having someone act in Rob's stead. When he comes back and cooks us all a lavish meal, he can have the reins, but until then we should have someone who is willing and able to wield the power and the authority of the position.

[K. A. Pital]

Agreeing with Skimmer, making the Senate more "efficient" trying to optimize it for problems which are frankly beyond it's scope of discretion, like votes on the fate of all individual users is pointless in my view as well.

This is Moderating problem, not a Senate problem par se. The Senate should get less frequency, but more substance in reports and votes. The Mods can handle the rest, and expanding our Moderator Staff to include new active moderators might be a better solution than doing anything with the Senate.

[Knife]

Agreeing with Skimmer, making the Senate more "efficient" trying to optimize it for problems which are frankly beyond it's scope of discretion, like votes on the fate of all individual users is pointless in my view as well.

This is Moderating problem, not a Senate problem par se. The Senate should get less frequency, but more substance in reports and votes. The Mods can handle the rest, and expanding our Moderator Staff to include new active moderators might be a better solution than doing anything with the Senate.

Yes and no. Staffing problems have been evident. You can say 'more mod power' but for whatever reason it hasn't happened. While the Senate is psuedo government, it is a little bit government and thus has, imo, taking up the slack a bit.

Perhaps that is the genesis of the frustration with the Senate, it being the body trying to fill the void where it doesn't have the power to fill. Remember the N&P dust up where ' better moderatorship' was mentioned repeatedly and yet wasn't made.

I'll agree to more active mods on any proposal since they can stamp down the bullshit. May not be the bullshit you like/dislike but they'll do it if motivated. I agree tenitively with Marina in that a Senate supermod could more easily enact Senate decree's, but with being a senate animal would be constrained by the Senate. A random mod or super mod is only answerable to mike, perhaps the moderator 'group'.

Take your pick.

Either way, more enforcement is better imo. Long run, may not be.

[CmdrWilkens]

So on the note of the overall idea of shaking up the staffing situaiton I've mentioned working on a revision to the rules and I'm trying to tweak out a couple different variants to put before everyone that would allow for replacing Rob and otherwise re-organizing the Senate. If folks like the proposals then we could put it to a vote.

Highlights:
- Creates rules for electing a Chancellor similair to how we currently elect the Whip
- Edits on a few nomination/voting related rules to clarify and speed the process
- Eliminate the "barred for suggesting nomination" rule
- New rules for removing existing senators both for cause and by choice.

I've essentially worked out variants that have some or all of the above changes and I'm just trying to get them formatted to be easily digestible before placing them up for review.